What My Little Project Here Is All About (a leftist explains her vision of utopia) - by Caitlin Johnstone

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------

This leftist author has a vision, and it's the same vision all would-be tyrants, dictators, and authoritarians want: World domination. She is working toward her version of peace, cooperation, and spirituality, which of course means your version must be eliminated. You are deceived, believing a lie, living in an illusion. She's here to tell the truth.

------------------

Guest column: Let's support Montana families, not out-of-state millionaires - By Sen. Pat Flowers and Rep. Kim Abbott

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

This article is replete with leftist bumper-sticker slogans, platitudes, and talking points. It contains no substance, facts, details or concrete information. The writers extensively employ tired worn out leftist tropes (aka agitprop) in an effort to demonize some people and favor other people based on asserted merit.

Most importantly, the Democrats are in the minority in Montana. Substantially so: 

Republicans will hold 68 seats in the House and 34 in the Senate during the 2023 session...

Democrats will occupy 32 seats in the House and 16 seats in the Senate. Therefore, their policies and agenda were rejected, big time. This means they are the ones who need to compromise. They are the ones who need to work with the Republicans. 

They are the ones who need to change.

-------------------

Theological Song Review: Firm Foundation by The Belonging Co. Ft. Cody Carnes – 35/100 - by David Morrill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------

We've commented on some other articles written by Mr. Morrill. We've found that he seems to have an ax to grind, which colors his writing in a substantial way. He is simply looking for trouble in the "NAR" songs he reviews, and rigs his rating system to ensure they receive bad recommendations.

We recognize that everyone has their own tastes in worship music and in the way worship is conducted when the saints gather, so we have no quibble with Mr. Morrill's tastes. It's only when he attacks and impugns based on some imagined infractions that we draw the line.

Since Mr. Morrill cannot do us the courtesy of supplying the actual lyrics in question, we shall do so ourselves:

Christ is my firm foundation, The Rock on which I stand
When everything around me is shaken, I've never been more glad
That I put my faith in Jesus, 'Cause He's never let me down
He's faithful through generations, So why would He fail now?

He won't

I've still got joy in chaos, I've got peace that makes no sense
So I won't be going under, I'm not held by my own strength
'Cause I've built my life on Jesus, He's never let me down
He's faithful in every season, So why would He fail now?

He won't

He won't fail

He won't

Rain came and wind blew, But my house was built on You
I'm safe with You, I'm gonna make it through

Audio link.

In actual fact, these are pretty innocuous lyrics, which is probably why Mr. Morrill did not quote them. Not terribly profound, but not heretical or misleading in any way. And they have the virtue of being based on Scripture. 

We decided to examine a hymn that is based on the same theme, On Christ the Solid Rock, using the author's criteria. That is found at the end of our post below.

We should note that we are not here to defend the song, the songwriter, or any organization. We intend to evaluate Mr. Morrill's presentation.

Also, we examined another critique of this song here.

------------------

What is the Doctrine of Divine Immutability and Why Does it Matter - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------

The word "immutability," like the doctrine, is unnecessarily arcane and pretentious. It simply means "unchanging."

We have found this pretentiousness too often in our studies of doctrine. Impassibility, soteriology, regeneration, aseity, decretive will, hypostatic union, immanence, middle knowledge... the list of obtuse theological terminology goes on and on to no one's profit.

If the reader thinks we are wrong about this, the existence of the article itself vindicates us. If conventional terminology were more typically used, this article would not need to exist. Thus the article, needed to explain the term, means the term requires explanation. 

But strangely, this is a short and unsatisfying article. The author has the opportunity to explain and document and explore the idea that God does not change, but punts with less than 500 words expended. 

Lastly, we note the author cowardly hides behind the nameless "Publisher" moniker.

--------------

Snowflake Apostate Christians Suffer the Persecution of Canceled Dinner Reservations - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------

Rev. Wade shows his leftist political bonafides once again. And his aversion to the Bible as well, since he neither quotes nor references any Bible verse in this entire "devotional," other than the irrelevant opening Scripture. He has nearly 1500 words (minus quoted material) to explain some biblical principle, expound upon some matter of doctrine, or uplift the reader's faith. 

He doesn't bother.

Rev. Wade is a reliably terrible writer. His presentations consist almost entirely of undocumented assertions, leaps of logic, false equivalencies, summary denials, and unintentional ironies, all written in a stream-of-consciousness impenetrable prose.

This is embarrassingly bad.

------------------

PREDESTINED BY GOD - by Gabriel Hughes

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------

Predestination is a favorite subject of Calvinists, and perhaps one of the most misunderstood.  Our primary quibble with predestination is that it can lead to kind of a fatalism, where one might easily conclude that nothing makes a difference because God will save whom He will save.

But more importantly, knowing about predestination is pretty much useless. It does not change any obligation or privilege of the Christian life. It is nothing more than an intellectual exercise with no practical application.

Further, Christians all agree that God is sovereign. But what that means (in particular, to God) is another matter. 

The author quotes a lot of Scripture, which gladdens our heart. He thoroughly documents God's sovereignty, which is helpful. Quoting Scripture is an all-to-rare occurrence among those who represent themselves as Bible teachers.

What he does not demonstrate is God's sovereignty means that God is absolutely determining everything that happens. Cannot God, being sovereign, sovereignly choose to not choose? What if God, knowing and controlling everything, nevertheless possesses the power to let things play out as they will in some fashion of His choosing?

Our problem is, we want to anthropomorphize God. Our human view of sovereignty causes us to impose upon God our definitions. We arrogantly decide what sovereignty means, when we have no idea at all the sheer greatness and power of God to decide for Himself who He is and how His will plays out in the universe.

We will take time to examine some of the proof texts offered by the author, and explain why they are not about universal predestination.

-------------------------

Myths of Doom: Can the origins of today’s right be traced to the 1990s? -By John Ganz

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

The author takes over 2500 words to provide what is essentially a fawning book review, interwoven with an incoherent narrative comprised of half-remembered history, the haphazard lumping together of uncorrelated persons and events, unrelated factoids, and agendized smears of his political opponents. It's simply a long string of bits and pieces of phrases and talking points, as if the author did a series of random copy and pastes from leftist websites.

There is no discernable purpose, nothing of use, and nothing that even makes sense.

We are willing to bet that the reader will not be able to finish reading this screed.

-----------------

5 Ways Covenant Theology Applies to Everyday Life - by Sarah Ivill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------

The author promises to tell us about the usefulness of covenant theology, but we notice she did not promise to explain how covenant theology is uniquely useful. Her desire is to bolster her doctrine, yet she does not tell us how only her doctrine does these things. Read her list. Does the reader see any item that is facilitated only by covenant theology?

Astonishingly, the author will not tell us anything about covenant theology, so we cannot even evaluate her statements. She does briefly explain some doctrines, complete with Bible references, but she does not explain what is covenant theology, how it uniquely comes to bear within those doctrines, or how it's relevant.

Gotquestions provides a relatively clear explanation, and even provides some information on a competing viewpoint, dispensationalism. 

But more to the point, since we've noted that the author does not tell us anything about covenant theology, it causes us to wonder, why does she bother?

-----------------------

Strange Lyre: A Radical Departure from Historic Worship - by DAVID DE BRUYN

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

The author of today's article is continuing his series on what's wrong with "Pentecostal worship." Or "charismatic worship." We commented on another of those articles here. In fact, the author has been on this train of thought for over a year.

He clearly has an ax to grind, but he never really articulates what the problem is, other than the fact that "Pentecostal worship" (or "charismatic worship") is evil because it's not like the worship of the traditional church. From there he goes from inference to assertion to accusation, without documenting a single statement.  He doesn't explain anything, he just asserts and moves on.

And, in keeping with past practice, the author quotes no Scripture. Not a syllable. He writes nearly 900 words. How can one teach about worship or any other part of our faith without quoting the Bible? He simply appeals to his preference. 

This is truly bad teaching. The author ought to be ashamed.

--------------------

10 things about Christianity that Jesus would not be happy about if he returned

A "pastor" posted this on his faceborg feed:

***

Transcript:

10 things about Christianity that Jesus would not be happy about if he returned:

1. That his vision for a transformed society, got twisted into an afterlife fantasy about heaven.

2. That a religion was formed to worship his name, instead of a movement to advance his message.

3. That the gospel says his death solved the problem of humankind's separation from God, instead of accepting thot his life revealed the truth that there is no separation from God.

4. That the religion bearing his name was conceived by the theories and doctrines of Paul, instead of the truth Jesus lived and demonstrated.

5, That he was said to exclusively be God in the flesh, putting his example out of reach, rather than teaching that we all share in the same spirit that empowered his character and life.

6. That the religion that claims his name, teaches that his wisdom and teachings a re the only legitimate way to know truth and God.

7. The idea that humankind stands condemned before God and deserving of Divine wrath and eternal conscious judgement, requiring the death of Jesus to fix it.

8. That people are waiting on Jesus to return to save the world and end suffering, rather than taking responsibility for saving the world and solving suffering ourselves.

9. That people think there is magical potency in uttering the name of Jesus, rather than accessing our own natural powers and capabilities to effect change.

10. That people have come to associate Jesus with church, theology, po litics and power, rather than courage, justice, humanity, beauty and love.

The first thing we want to note about this typically Leftist version of Jesus and Christianity is the raw audacity required to put one's own political and social opinions in Jesus' mouth, while simultaneously contradicting the biblical record on what Jesus is actually recorded as saying. 

Yes, we have an actual reference for what Jesus said, although most leftists would not accept it as valid: The Bible. But while the Bible is an indisputably trustworthy source of things Jesus said, it's also clearly superior to the references cited by the author, which are, well, nothing. He just makes it all up, spouting leftist agitprop.

As we noted, this is a typical leftist version of Jesus and Christianity, where Jesus becomes an excuse for leftist political philosophy and social action that perfectly aligns with Marxism.

Notitia, Assensus, and Fiducia: The Nature of Saving Faith - by Ed Dingess

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------

Mr. Dingess has a real fondness for foreign words and obtuse explanations, which has the effect of rendering his article nearly impenetrable. Maybe he thinks it makes him seem more intellectual, or maybe it's an affectation. 

Regardless, there is no reason to write this way, especially for one who fancies himself a Bible teacher. Teachers explain, clarify, and impart information. A teacher who would impede that is known as a poor teacher.

And, the author has nearly 1200 words (minus quotes) in which to do this.

We will summarize: It's not enough to believe there's God. Further, it's not enough to believe accurate information about salvation. Saving faith is necessary, and that is a gift of God. That's all there is to this article, in terms of the author's stated objective. He adds little else, which leaves us wondering why he wrote the article at all.  

Happily, the author actually quotes Scripture. This rather rare occurrence among these "Bible teachers" gladdens our hearts.

-----------------

John the Baptist: The Last Prophet - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

Dr. MacArthur is a respected Bible teacher, so we are surprised at the errors and even bad doctrine often contained in his postings. Since he represents himself as an authoritative voice, we feel justified to hold his feet to the fire.

Today he discusses John the Baptist, and in doing so makes several errant comments, not the least of which is contained in the title, "The Last Prophet." But by no measure was John the Baptist the last prophet. Dr. MacArthur will not mention anything about him being the last prophet in this article, but he will provide a single-sentence mention of this in his subsequent article:

Though his story is told in the gospels, John was the last of the Old Testament prophets.

Oh. So he wasn't the last prophet, he was the last OT prophet. But how does Dr. MacArthur know this? The Bible doesn't say so. Jesus does identify him as a prophet, and more [Lk. 7:26]. And we do have some of John's prophecies [Lk. 3:16-17 and Jn. 1:33 for example], so there is no doubt he was a prophet, and no one was greater [Mt. 11:11].

There were numerous NT prophets [Ac. 11:27, Ac. 13:1, Ac. 15:32, Ac. 21:9]. There is the prophetic office [Ep. 4:11] and the spiritual gift of prophecy [Ro. 12:6]. However, Dr. MacArthur, being a cessationist, wants John the Baptist to be the last prophet because he doesn't believe in contemporary prophecy.

But at least he quotes Scripture. This is relatively rare among these Bible teachers.

-----------------------

An Open Letter to Fellow Believers Who Have Concerns About Online Polemics/Discernment Ministry - by David Morrill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

"Discernment" ministries are nothing if not sensitive. They're in the business of criticizing pastors and churches, but they don't like being on the receiving end of criticism. 

And Protestia is no exception.

The thing about it is, "discernment" ministries are sometimes worthy of criticism. They are too often over-the-top, insulting, and, yes, down right wrong. In keeping with their hyperbolic tendencies, their response to criticism is also hyperbolic.

Here's a "discernment" ministry that claims that its brand of discernment is definitionally loving.

This is a "discernment" minister who was respectfully asked a question about the status of her heart when she writes about false teachers, and her response is truly astounding.

This same person does concede that some criticism is deserved, but spends the greater part of her article complaining about how difficult it is to be a "discernment" minister.

Here we have a person who believe that only false teachers are divisive, which apparently justifies any and all bad behavior of "discernment" ministers.

"Discernment" ministers can get really nasty. Here's some examples:

• Karen Swallow, an admittedly questionable Christian, was "discerned" (by Protestia!) as follows:

hideously ugly

post-menopausal woman 

bizarre wardrobe choices

a penchant for cackling

no personal charisma

a face that scares children

a voice that sounds like nails down a chalkboard

pugnacious

unladylike

uglier on the inside than she is on the outside

the personality of a Roomba 

 the personal charisma of fetid corpse

unpleasant and evil woman

• Here's a "discernment minister" (also from Protestia) who thinks it's appropriate to rank the worst Christian of the year.

• Here's one who accuses a person of committing the unforgiveable sin.

• T.D. Jakes might have some problems, but here's what a "discernment" minister wrote about him: TD Jakes deserves no honor among bible teaching, God-fearing men. Like you, he deserves nothing but our contempt and the working end of the shepherd's rod.

• Here's a fellow who seriously wants all charismatics to die of COVID (from Protestia's predecessor "Pulpit and Pen").

• This man says we don't have to pray for people who are false teachers.

• This man feels it's within the bounds of proper discourse to call someone an imbecile (also from Protestia's predecessor "Pulpit and Pen").

Also, the author seems to think that because Jesus was violent once and Paul was insulting once that it gives him carte blanche permission to do the same. This of course is ridiculous. Description is not prescription.

We don't want to suggest the above examples are typical, but they happen frequently enough that they're not aberrations. And thankfully, there are sane voices who carry a message of caution that is valuable for all of us.

As a final note, this long defense of the author's "ministry" doesn't contain a single quote from the Bible. There are many Bible references, but no verses. It's continually dismaying to us how these people think they can teach the Bible without quoting it.

-------------------

Euthanizing The Poor Is Just Capitalism’s True Face: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix - by Caitlin Johnstone

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------

The author is a doctrinaire leftist, and not a particularly bright one. She is so inured to the leftist agitprop that she really believes it to be the truth. We've often found that socialists have a unique set of blinders they wear when considering political systems. They have an uncanny ability to completely ignore the atrocities perpetrated in the name of their political philosophy while simultaneously blaming the other side for the results of their advocacy.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

However, the reality is most leftists are cynically spewing their agitprop. They don't really believe anything they say or what other leftists say. They are simply doing their duty in service to The Narrative. A leftist is permitted, even encouraged to say anything if it serves The Narrative. In return, they get accolades from their leftist friends, they get a pass on behaving like greedy capitalists, and they are free to engage in any behavior, legal or illegal, they wish, if they simply say the right things and hold to the right ideas.

The Narrative, therefore, is the talking points and bumper-sticker slogans approved by the Central Committee for dissemination each day. This is why we see such uniformity in The Narrative as each purveyor of agitprop receives his or her marching orders.

The sole purpose of The Narrative is not to tell facts, explain things, or increase understanding. No, the Left doesn't care about women, the poor, gay rights, fascism, inequality, abortion, or racism. Those things are only of interest to the degree they can be used to service The Narrative. In fact, Leftists regularly act in opposition to these causes, but as we said, they will invariably get a pass because they are serving The Agenda.

The Narrative has one singular purpose: To advance The Agenda. The Agenda, quite simply, is to overthrow the power structures so as to install Marxism. They want rich people's money taken from them, America's liberty negated, and respect for individual rights subordinated to the state, and the destruction of every idea or activity that allows people to live in peace unaccosted by tyrannical government as they pursue their beneficial self-interest. 

The Left cannot countenance a people who have achieved a nice life, a nice family, who are generous and helpful, and polite and hard working. The Agenda requires a disaffected, dissatisfied, envying class of people (the proletariat) who can be persuaded to rise up against the power structure (the bourgeois). 

Thus the purpose the author's article is solely to promulgate The Narrative. She did her duty today, and will repeat the same bumper sticker slogans and leftist talking points tomorrow and every day until The Agenda is finally installed.

As an aside, it is the Left that wants to euthanize. Canada, a decidedly leftist government, has legalized euthanasia, and to date, has euthanized nearly 32,000 people. A former Olympic athlete who had been trying for years to obtain a wheelchair ramp was instead offered euthanasia.

This is typical for leftists, to accuse their adversaries of doing something untoward while they themselves are actually doing that very thing.

----------------------

Does “only God know the heart”? Or are there cases when we do too? - by Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

We are saddened once again to be pressed into service regarding Ms. Prata's errant teaching. Today she sets out to refute the idea that no one can know someone's heart. She claims that it's possible to know a false teacher's heart, and lists a bunch of Scriptures that are supposed to document her case.

Thus there are three prongs to this issue that come to bear:

1. The cited Scriptures talk about the heart
2. The cited Scriptures tell us we can specifically know someone else's heart, and 
3. The cited Scriptures are all about false teachers.

Unfortunately for Ms. Prata, each of the prongs is incorrect. None of these verses contain the English word "heart," none of them contain the Greek word kardia, none of them tell us we can know someone's heart, and only some of them are even about false teachers. 

From these Scriptures Ms. Prata concludes that she is able to discern the contents of a specific false teacher's heart. That is, because the Bible describes what comes from an evil heart, for her that is the same thing as being able to know an individual heart. Or more likely, she had an idea in mind and went searching for Scriptures that confirm it.

So what about knowing hearts? We are pretty certain that Ms. Prata does not believe that apostolic power is in operation today, nor does she believe in the "supernatural' gifts. Peter, an apostle, discerned both Ananias' and Simon's heart:

Ac. 5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?  

Ac. 8:21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 

The prophetic gift reveals hearts: 

1Co. 14:25 ...and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

These are about supernatural empowerments. So unless the discernment Ms. Prata claims to possess is the supernatural ability [1Co. 12:10] to distinguish between spirits [1Jn. 4:1], she does not have the ability to know a particular someone's heart. Knowing what comes from evil hearts does not necessarily give the ability to know a specific evil heart.

We do find evidence that we can get a hint as to the nature of our own hearts:

Mt. 6:21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

We might have some evidence of the contents of someone's heart, but that does not mean we actually know someone's heart: 

Mt. 12:34b For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.

Mt. 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

Further, a deceptive heart definitionally means that evil is being hidden by deception. Deception means someone is being deceived:

Mt. 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect — if that were possible.

What does the Bible actually say about who knows the heart? 

He. 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Je. 17:9-10 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? 10 “I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve.”

The thing about this is, Ms. Prata presents herself as a teacher of women. She has a website that purports to tell the truth. But invariably she has an underlying agenda in mind when she writes about something. So rather than teach the topic, she simply tries to refute something under the guise of a teaching, in this case those who would defend who she thinks are false teachers.

Thus she enters the equation with a bias, which means she will completely miss the things we just discussed, leading to faulty teaching.

Lastly, once again we find a supposed Bible teacher who is unable to quote Scripture. We shall remedy that problem below.

--------------------

Dr. Michael Brown Blaming the Lost and Defending His War Against Them - By Anthony Wad

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

Rev. Wade's premise is in his title. But Dr. Brown never blames the lost, nor does he describe any sort of desire to war against them. These two accusations are the result of Rev. Wade insisting on his own definition of words. Dr. Brown employs the phrase "culture war" to describe the conflict between good and evil in society, which is a very common descriptor for the state of our country. Rev. Wade badly wants this phrase to mean that the other side of the "culture war" must be an enemy. Thus Dr. Brown is blaming sinners as being the enemy.

But no one uses the phrase in this way. In fact, it is a rather mild hyperbole used to describe the struggle between two world views.

Rev. Wade uses more than 2700 words (excluding quoted material). Notice that we summarized Rev. Wade's position in a couple of sentences. Because Rev. Wade is given to long tangents and stream-of-consciousness presentations, he is largely unable to express coherent thoughts.

In addition, Rev. Wade neither quotes nor references any Bible verse (except for the opening Scripture). Not a syllable of the Bible anywhere in this "devotion." No doctrine explained. No exegesis. No precept we might be able to use to enhance our walk of faith. No biblical principle clarified. Nothing of eternal importance. 

Nothing.

We should say, we are not here to defend Dr. Brown. Our intent is to examine Rev. Wade's presentation.

-------------------------

Why Trumpism as a fascist movement will not disappear - By Wayne Madsen

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

Yet another Trump-is-fascist article. When the command goes out from headquarters, the minions leap to their word processors and start cranking out their bumper-sticker slogans.

This article is one of those. The author's purpose is not to inform, explain, or clarify. He's not intending to impart information or understanding. This is not written to contribute to the debate.

No, the author is simply bolstering The Narrative in service to The Agenda. The Narrative is the Leftist talking points of the day, the factoids and topics that always appear simultaneously all over the media landscape, designed to facilitate The Agenda. The Agenda is the elimination of the current system to install Marxism. 

This article is far more clumsy than what we typically see. It is so breathtakingly dumb, so filled with agitprop, false narratives, leftist talking points, and invented conspirators, that we barely know where to start. We are attempting to shake off the effects of this, but an odd brain fog resists all our efforts to do so. 

This is what raw, unadulterated leftism does to a previously clearheaded person's mind.

We should also note that the author is engaging in Mountain Man's Law. Everything he tells us about the Republicans is something the Left is actually doing.

---------------------

RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS ABOUT AMILLENNIALISM - by Gabriel Hughes

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------

In the past we have criticized the author for his poorly reasoned writings. But for the most part today's article is a very well done explanation regarding his eschatology. He quotes Scripture, challenges conventional thinking, and respectfully lays out his case logically and from the Bible. 

This presentation gladdens our heart. So rarely do we find Bible teachers who actually quote and reference the Bible. And no attacks on the opposition. Well done.

Unfortunately, the author doesn't really explain amillennialism is or even what the millennium is.

In addition, we do have some quibbles with the author's presentation, which we will note below.

-----------------

Unformed Expression Share -by DAVID DE BRUYN (about structure in our church practices)

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

The author builds an elaborate edifice based on preconceptions, appeals to historical practices, and culture-based factors. 

We don't accept the author's premise that spontaneous expressions (i.e., a preacher speaking extemporaneously, a worship leader singing a spontaneous song, or a person going off script when giving a testimony) are without form and therefore undesirable. It seems to us that a spontaneous expression can and often does have its own form, perhaps undiscernible to the casual listener. 

Further, even if there's a lack of form, we are at loss to produce a Scripture that tells us this is bad.

And in fact, the author is unable to produce a Scripture that says this. In fact, he is unable to quote or even reference a single Scripture. Not a syllable. We have noted many times this defect in the presentations of supposed "Bible" teachers.

---------------------

Rethink - Original Sin

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered what we think are unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were too lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that there is more than one way to interpret doctrine, more than one way to think about the faith, and more than one way to read the Scriptures. We would not suggest that our way is the only way, or the right way; we are not Bible scholars. But we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to rightly divide the Word of God.